January 9, 2013

Haetzni: Only autonomy for Arabs

Who’s afraid of autonomy?Op-ed: New Mideast only has room for one state for Jews, another state plus autonomy for Palestinians
Elyakim Haetzni, YNET

The political map of the Middle East was drawn shortly after World War One and following 400 years of Ottoman rule. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and “Palestine” – the Land of Israel – were established out of nothing as “mandates” – territories that were administered on behalf of the League of Nations for the benefit of the local Arabs and to secure the establishment of the “national home of the Jewish nation.” This home stretched to the Iraqi border, from both banks of the Jordan River. Within these territories the world powers only recognized ethnic groups (apart from the Jewish nation) and secured their religious and civil rights. The south-Syria ethnic groups had no idea they were the “nation” known as “Palestinian.” Only when their king, Faisal, was expelled from Syria by the French and the Mandate for Palestine was established in the Land of Israel did they reinvent themselves as a “Palestinian nation” that has a right to a national home of its own.

The Palestinians substantiated this new identity with riots and pogroms that continue to this day. Way back in 1922, when the Mandate for Palestine was approved, the British tried to calm them down by dividing the land. About 3/4 of Palestine, the entire area east of the Jordan River – was handed to them, but to no avail. In the remaining area, west of the Jordan River, the attacks persisted. The lands east of the river were placed under the rule of Emir Abdullah, who would later turn them into the “Jordanian” – not “Palestinian” – kingdom, although Arabs also consider Jordan to be “Palestine,” and 70% of the kingdom’s inhabitants are Palestinians. So the British Mandate was actually revised for the benefit of another nation, the Palestinian nation, which received most of the territory.

Seemingly, this was the realization of the “two states for two peoples” vision, but the new nation demanded two countries – “Jordan” in the east and Palestine in the west – so far only in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

The new Middle East that was shaped during the 1920s is crumbling before our eyes. In Iraq, Syria and Lebanon the Sunnis, Shiites, Druze and Alawis are going their separate ways. And where will the Palestinians go? Two possible scenarios concern the Hashemite Kingdom: 1) After the Palestinian state in the West Bank gets the Jordan Valley it will ‘swallow’ Jordan, and this will be seen as a natural and legitimate unification of the Palestinian people. 2) The Palestinian majority in Jordan will revolt and cross the Jordan River from the opposite direction. The result of both scenarios will be the same.

But they would still be faced with a problem, because there is a Jewish country in this area, and as far as it is concerned, one Palestinian state is enough. Judea and Samaria are stuck between this state (which is the same state regardless of whether it will be called “Jordan” or “Palestine”) and the Jewish state in the west. Seemingly, this territory should be a part of Israel, as it is included in the one-fourth that was left for the Jewish people, who also have a historical right to the land. However, despite the settlement enterprise, thanks to which about a third of all of Judea, Samaria and east Jerusalem’s residents are Jewish – the vast majority of Judea and Samaria’s residents are Palestinian.

The necessary compromise is autonomy: Israel will extend its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, and the Knesset will enact a law granting autonomy to Arabs living in areas A and B. The residents will vote once for their “local regime” and a second time in the state located to the east, which they will be citizens of. Meaning, the West Bank Arabs will be citizens of Palestine and residents of an Israeli autonomy. According to the UN’s Partition Plan for Palestine, the Arab residents of the Hebrew state would be allowed to obtain citizenship in the neighboring state and vote there. Even the Oslo agreement, which the Left is so proud of, calls for autonomy: Security, foreign relations, infrastructure, water, airspace, border crossings and the basic economic structure all remain under Israel’s control.

In the new Middle East there is room for one state for the Jews and a state plus autonomy for the Palestinians. Nothing more.

It’s fixation with you, the Jews, not with the Palis. Nobody really cares for the Palestinians, as the fact that the so-called refugees are being held in bad conditions in camps in order to be used as a poster for purported Israeli oppression

Most of the so-called camps are indistinguishable from any rural Arab town anywhere in the ME and some are in better condition than some inner cities in America like Detroit.

It’s fixation with you, the Jews, not with the Palis. Nobody really cares for the Palestinians, as the fact that the so-called refugees are being held in bad conditions in camps in order to be used as a poster for purported Israeli oppression.

Check out his web site. Big bucks in missionary business. Just for the Jews they have spent over 10 billion dollars in the past 10 years. The religion business is big and profitable for some. It’s obvious he is a cultist.

“[A]s you said, the theological beliefs are not necessarily the true explanation of the moral sadism that Curious American evinces in alluding to analogies of Jews with Nazis, but i think they are the best explanation, considering the past Christian animus against Jews. But this is not as important as the fact that such moral sadism is present in Curious American…”

If so, then focus on that, and leave the theological speculation out of it (at least until such time as you’re certain of that ‘moral sadism’s theological base)

— absent certainty, theological attribution is, at best, a distraction; at worst, it’s bigotry of a sort which can only lead to further confusion and outright mischief.

“[Curio’s] evading to answer the points that you make: he is not interested in facts (otherwise he would be acknowledging them)…”

That’s one explanation.

Another possibility is that he might be absorbing those facts. Processing them.

Often such things take time.

They certainly do for ME, whenever YoursTruly is confronted with facts that shake up his own world. (There are all sorts of things in my head that represent varying stages of germination & development at any given moment.)

Then too, our correspondent may need the time to CHECK OUT those facts for himself — to assure himself that what I (or others here) have written isn’t strictly (or largely) a spin job from a partisan.

My suspicion is that where we find C-A today represents, in point of fact, the positioning of somebody who has actually come quite a long way already, just to get here. One man’s opinion, TBS.

4) Completely destroy the sovereignty of all nations and every feeling or expression of patriotism.

5) Establish a one-world government through which the Luciferian Illuminati elite can rule the world. All other objectives are secondary to this one supreme purpose.

6) Take the education of children completely away from the parents. Cunningly and subtly lead the people thinking that compulsory school attendance laws are absolutely necessary to prevent illiteracy and to prepare children for better positions and life’s responsibilities. Then after the children are forced to attend the schools get control of normal schools and teacher’s colleges and also the writing and selection of all text books.

7) Take all prayer and Bible instruction out of the schools and introduce pornography, vulgarity, and courses in sex. If we can make one generation of any nation immoral and sexy, we can take that nation.

8) Completely destroy every thought of patriotism, national sovereignty, individualism, and a private competitive enterprise system.

9) Circulate vulgar, pornographic literature and pictures and encourage the unrestricted sale and general use of alcoholic beverage and drugs to weaken and corrupt the youth.

10) Foment, precipitate and finance large scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt the nations and thereby force them into a one-world government.

11) Secretly infiltrate and control colleges, universities, labor unions, political parties, churches, patriotic organizations, and governments. These are direct quotes from their own writings (The Conflict of the Ages, by Clemens Gaebelein pp. 100-102).

@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Dionissis!
I was minding my own business, leisurely going over the comment section of this respectable blog, and I came upon your comment….
Please note that since I was having a full out sip of methaxa, after reading your comment, the entire good vintage methaxa has been pro pulsed from my mouth onto the screen of my iPad and I am afraid it may have caused some irreparable damages.
Kindly supply me with your coordinates so that my attorney could properly reach you….
That was really good!

If so, then focus on that, and leave the theological speculation out of it (at least until such time as you’re certain of that ‘moral sadism’s theological base)

— absent certainty, theological attribution is, at best, a distraction; at worst, it’s bigotry of a sort which can only lead to further confusion and outright mischief.

There is no reason to leave it out just because it mirrors your personal theology. In every discussion you have tried to move any discussion and argument away from CA personal religious beliefs and tried to persuade him that he is just a honest gentile mistaken in his world view when his world view in not his problem. A combination of fanaticism, Avarice and Jew Hared is what motivates him and not anything else. You were defending his non missionary identity and apparently never bothered to visit his site which is clearly missionary . His myriad of statements also confirm that he is and has all but admitted it. Now, what’s your agenda in defending him when the facts were clear to any with eyes and a brain to read and see the obvious. Too close to home dweller? Like two peas in a pod?

Another possibility is that he might be absorbing those facts. Processing them.

Often such things take time.

They certainly do for ME, whenever YoursTruly is confronted with facts that shake up his own world. (There are all sorts of things in my head that represent varying stages of germination & development at any given moment.)

Then too, our correspondent may need the time to CHECK OUT those facts for himself — to assure himself that what I (or others here) have written isn’t strictly (or largely) a spin job from a partisan.

My suspicion is that where we find C-A today represents, in point of fact, the positioning of somebody who has actually come quite a long way already, just to get here. One man’s opinion, TBS.

Most of the so-called camps are indistinguishable from any rural Arab town anywhere in the ME and some are in better condition than some inner cities in America like Detroit.

My information derived from the Elder of Ziyon blog, and he is always very credible. If you type in his search box “squalid refugee camps” you get a whole series of posts referring to camps with bad living conditions.

Check out his web site. Big bucks in missionary business. Just for the Jews they have spent over 10 billion dollars in the past 10 years. The religion business is big and profitable for some. It’s obvious he is a cultist.

If so, then focus on that, and leave the theological speculation out of it (at least until such time as you’re certain of that ‘moral sadism’s theological base)

— absent certainty, theological attribution is, at best, a distraction; at worst, it’s bigotry of a sort which can only lead to further confusion and outright mischief.

Ok, ok, don’t shout!

I didn’t refer to his theology as the source of his moral sadism in this thread, i attributed the latter to his moral narcissim (but, yes, if asked, i would have attributed his narcissim to his theology).

My suspicion is that where we find C-A today represents, in point of fact, the positioning of somebody who has actually come quite a long way already, just to get here. One man’s opinion, TBS.

I don’t doubt either your psychological intuitions or your prescribed dealing with the situation. In fact, i give them far higher probability to be the right ones compared to mine – and not just because you have proved yourself to me once already.

But i just can’t act, can’t feel like acting, on your psychological perceptions with regards to C.A. – not if he keeps talking like Mr moral vain who needs to hit a target so as to reassure himself and alleviate his moral insecurities.

“[A]s you said, the theological beliefs are not necessarily the true explanation of the moral sadism that Curious American evinces in alluding to analogies of Jews with Nazis, but i think they are the best explanation, considering the past Christian animus against Jews. But this is not as important as the fact that such moral sadism is present in Curious American…”

“If so, then focus on that, and leave the theological speculation out of it (at least until such time as you’re certain of that ‘moral sadism’s theological base) — absent certainty, theological attribution is, at best, a distraction; at worst, it’s bigotry of a sort which can only lead to further confusion and outright mischief.”

“There is no reason to leave it out just because it mirrors your personal theology.”

Of course there isn’t reason to leave it out merely for that.

But that ISN’T why I propose to leave it out.

It is strictly your own, fondly cherished prejudice that lets you ASSUME that my theology has anything to do with it

— just as it is that same prejudice that lets you assume HIS theology has a direct connection to HIS remarks on this board.

“In every discussion you have tried to move any discussion and argument away from CA personal religious beliefs and tried to persuade him that he is just a honest gentile mistaken in his world view when his world view in not his problem.”

YOU say his world view is not his problem. But I don’t think YOU (of all persons) are in a position to say. I don’t think you’ve ever tried taking anything he says at face value. It’s enough for you to know that he identifies as a Christian for you to assume you can explain him away via religious bigotry.

— I give him the opportunity to present himself on his own terms. I give everybody that opportunity. (Even you, Pancho.)

It’s called the scientific method. You might want to try it out sometime (after you manage to spit out your reflexive bile).

When you trouble-shoot an engine, you never begin by hunting for major systems failures. You START by ruling out the small stuff. Then — after you’ve assured yourself that you’re not dealing with merely some shot bearings or an overdue oil change — then you can begin to explore weightier matters.

“A combination of fanaticism, Avarice and Jew Hared is what motivates him and not anything else.”

I await the evidence.

“You were defending his non missionary identity and apparently never bothered to visit his site which is clearly missionary.”

Frankly, I was unaware he even HAD a website till just now when I read your words. I do seem to recollect him saying that he did some writing, but I don’t recall him citing a specific site. If I had the address, I’d check it out (though I rather doubt it would corroborate anything you’ve said here as to his ‘motivation’ for the remarks that you question).

— How did you come across the website?

“His myriad of statements also confirm that he is and has all but admitted it.”

“I didn’t refer to [Curio’s] theology as the source of his moral sadism in this thread, i attributed the latter to his moral narcissim (but, yes, if asked, i would have attributed his narcissim to his theology).”

All I have to go on is what you wrote [repeated here]:

“[A]s you said, the theological beliefs are not necessarily the true explanation of the moral sadism that Curious American evinces in alluding to analogies of Jews with Nazis, but i think they are the best explanation, considering the past Christian animus against Jews. But this is not as important as the fact that such moral sadism is present in Curious American…”

“If there was no yamit here, [Curio] would have to invent one…”

Perhaps.

In any event, it certainly IS the case in reverse.

“I don’t doubt either your psychological intuitions or your prescribed dealing with the situation. In fact, i give them far higher probability to be the right ones compared to mine – and not just because you have proved yourself to me once already. But i just can’t act, can’t feel like acting, on your psychological perceptions with regards to C.A. – not if he keeps talking like Mr moral vain who needs to hit a target so as to reassure himself and alleviate his moral insecurities.”

There’s nothing to ‘act’ upon — until & unless you can discern a matter for yourself.

— Til then, you could just leave it an open question.

In the meantime, however, you might want to beware of judgment (as distinct from discernment).

Downplaying your viciousness won’t get you far: we know that you also decapitate missionaries.

Not to mention that your grand-grandparents crucified the Savior.

But I never decapitate missionaries on the sabbath.

My ancestors did not crucify anyone. If you knew how valuable wood was then it would be obvious that crucifixion of the hundreds of thousands of Jews in that manner would have bankrupted the Empire so it must be an urban myth. The way I heard it we stoned him to death and we sold the honors to the stone throwers, he who threw the first stone paid a bundle for the honor.

After his rants on using non lethal means to evict them Israel did just that. They moved in the middle of the night with a lot of manpower asked them politely to get on waiting buses which drove them all home. No good pictures or videos because the operation happened in darkness at an hour most were asleep. No incidents no bad press. Here was my reply to CA http://www.israpundit.org/archives/52272/comment-page-1#comment-254098.

dweller thinks he uses the scientific method but has a closed mind to that which he does not want to see or admit to, 3 monkey’s syndrome?

@ dweller:
dweller, i forgot to give the date of the discussion in the link i gave you: a day later from this discussion. He was supposed to be fact-checking what you told him. So he probably didn’t bother to do any fact-checking (and acknowledge the facts you presented him with), but just went on to find another pretext to morally condemn… people.

“I had been telling you all along, but you were not thinking! Now, your blood-thirstiness and aggression resulted in deaths and has caused Israel bad publicity. Wake up, if you want blood you pay for it!”.

Comments that take this track make it abundantly evident that Yamit knows little-to-nothing about

A. YoursTruly; OR

B. Curious American; OR

C. Yamit himself.

I won’t interfere. But we can safely exclude option B. And i would bet that A is out of the question, too. Now, option A is not an embarassment to Yamit, since you are an emotionally very rich personality, and i haven’t yet met a commentator here (me, obviously, included) that could claim that he can “make you out”.

In the meantime, however, you might want to beware of judgment (as distinct from discernment).

dweller, i have discerned that he feels a sort of pleasure in pointing out (fictitious, to be sure) Israeli moral failings. What’s wrong with passing judgement on the basis of this discernment? (provided of course that it’s an accurate one. If not, the judgement is false).
If i am not blinded by the need to feel the pleasure of judging, and i manage to make the proper discernment, then i think there’s nothing wrong with passing the correct judgement.
I guess it all depends on whether one is an addict in “moralizing”. If i am not, i don’t see a problem.

I don’t think i have the moral high ground. I think that he talks below the level of everyday decency.
It’s not me deluding myself that i am in Olympos. It’s him below the moral sea-level, with his prejudiced perceptions, which he has no problem repeating again and again despite evidence to their falsity.

“In the meantime, however, you might want to beware of judgment (as distinct from discernment).”

“i have discerned that [Curio] feels a sort of pleasure in pointing out (fictitious, to be sure) Israeli moral failings.”

If so, then his illicit pleasure is his problem.

“What’s wrong with passing judgement on the basis of this discernment? (provided of course that it’s an accurate one…)”

Your OWN illicit pleasure in judging him is YOUR problem.

“If i am not blinded by the need to feel the pleasure of judging, and i manage to make the proper discernment…”

Why isn’t simple discernment enough?

“I think that he talks below the level of everyday decency. It’s not me deluding myself that i am in Olympos. It’s him below the moral sea-level, with his prejudiced perceptions, which he has no problem repeating again and again despite evidence to their falsity.”

So, say so. But I’d be watching myself in the saying; it’s easy to be tempted to get-off on it (if you know the expression).

@ yamit82:
There is only one way and that is transfer and the longer we wait the more of them will need to be transferred.

Transfer is when the world Jewish community pays the Judean and Samarian Arabs enough money that they would leave voluntarily.

A lot of the younger (breeding stock) who are desperate might take you up on the offer.

But you prefer blood, and veins in your teeth.

Call it what it is: ETHNIC CLEANSING.

You pride yourself on bluntness, so be blunt! You want ETHNIC CLEANSING!

@ yamit82:They will never give up on their hope of driving us out and even if some few resort to violence against us it’s a price I’m not willing to pay that amounts to Russian Roulette with our lives and after 64 years of fighting them why should anyone delude themselves that things will change for the better? The Young Arabs have been thoroughly indoctrinated and are not afraid of us and it will not get better. They will become more proficient like making their own missiles and acquiring other more lethal tools of warfare as time goes by.

According to Torah, they are your cousins. Does it surpise you that they are as stubborn as you? Personality is inherited.

Here are my views again:

A) Israel has a right to exist. [Which half of the world denies]

B) Israel does not have to tack back the ’48 Refugees or their descendents [Which another quarter of the world requires]

C) Israel should keep all of Jerusalem [Ooops I sound like a Zionist, here]

D) Israel should annex Judea and Samaria [Wow! I sound like an extreme Zionist]

But where you and I disagree is:

I think that Israel should either:

A) Pay the Arabs to move
-or-
B) Enfranchise them. You can go slowly and require some knowledge of Hebrew.

But this infuriates you. You do not want to treat these people as equals.

However, we know from history, that in the 19th century, when Jews were abused, some Jews became radicalized. Some of the most famous revolutonaries of that era were Jewish. Oppression radicalizes people, even good people, even frum Jews.

I may be guessing, but if you were stuck in a village where “goyish” soldiers stuck rifles in your face every day, confiscated your farm land on questionable premises, subjected you to curfews, siezures, and harassment, even you would get radicalized. Well, maybe not you Yamit.

You are the very definition of mild-mannered</sarcasm>.

When people get their property siezed they get upset. Even if God did not give them the land. For ex: God did not give Jews the land of Poland; yet there are some Jews who want their property restored which was taken before 1946. (Click Here) So, I can understand why Arabs might want their property restored if it was taken even nearer to the present than 1946 … say 1948.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3373039,00.html
Group of Israeli lawyers says government offices in Warsaw ignoring president’s official promise to speed up handling of compensation for Jews whose property was seized during World War II; approval of citizenship taking one to two years instead of two months due to foot-dragging

How sad?! It is not like Israel bureaucrats foot drag when Arabs in Jerusalem try to get a building permit</sarcasm>.

The difference is: I recognize some wrong has been done to these Arabs even if their overall cause is wrong. I do not ask Israel to dissolve itself, nor give up her patrimony. But easing up, and enfranchisement is in order.

If not, then pay the Arabs to move to South America.

In most every other board I am on, I am considered a right wing Zionist. Except here!

Because I do not want Old Testament blood, guts, ethnic cleansing, and wrath, I get falsely charged, here.

If you are upset at what happened to Mizrahi Jews, then fine. Sue them in Western courts. There are courts in the USA, France, Britain. Have the Israeli Law Center sue to seize Moroccan, Egyptian, Algerian, Libyan assets.

I would encourage that.

But the Palestinians did not do the explusions of the Mizrahi Jews. In fact, they asked the Arab governments not to expel the Mizrahim. They knew Israel would make use of it; and they were right.

You have anywhere from 1.8 – 2.5 Million Arabs in Judea and Samaria. Most are young, and have not started breeding.

Pay them to leave or enfranchise them.

But if you are going to ethnically cleanse them; then admit what you are doing. It is not transfer. It is ETHNIC CLEANSING that you advocate.

Because it seems to me that he will not stop the Israel-bashing if he is not told in a judgmental way. It might need more than that (and more than one persons), but i think it is a prerequisite. He hasn’t shown signs of acquiescence when presented with milder responses in the past.

So, say so [to CA about Israel-bashing]. But I’d be watching myself in the saying; it’s easy to be tempted to get-off on it (if you know the expression).

Gotcha! I have replied to that one a few sentences above!
I have noticed the glee of malice in writing the judgmental words, but it only lasts for that period and it doesn’t really make a dent in me. I am positive that i don’t get off. I do get off in philosophical arguments that involve the use of Logic, but not in playing the judge.

Sh!t, i thought i was in my third drink but i have just finished the bottle! – only joking, i don’t drink alcohol.

dweller, now that i opened my computer and checked if i had passed the moderatress’ test (i haven’t, yet), i discovered that my neologism (predicated on the analogy with “actor-actress”) has exposed me to literary shame, for i mistyped it as “moderatOress”. Seems that congratulating myself on my elaborate phrasing was hubris enough to make me incur the wrath of the Goddess of Grammar.
I could always plea innocent due to carefree Honeybeeism, but i doubt people would believe that i am not an ignoramus.